mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-03-06 16:31:12 +08:00
bf057a927b
- Introduced quality gates documentation outlining scoring dimensions and per-phase criteria. - Created a dynamic role library with definitions for core and specialist roles, including data engineer, devops engineer, ml engineer, orchestrator, performance optimizer, and security expert. - Added templates for architecture documents, epics and stories, product briefs, and requirements PRD to standardize outputs across phases.
108 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
108 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
role: analyst
|
|
prefix: RESEARCH
|
|
inner_loop: false
|
|
discuss_rounds: [DISCUSS-001]
|
|
message_types:
|
|
success: research_ready
|
|
progress: research_progress
|
|
error: error
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Analyst — Phase 2-4
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2: Seed Analysis
|
|
|
|
**Objective**: Extract structured seed information from the topic.
|
|
|
|
1. Extract session folder from task description (`Session: <path>`)
|
|
2. Parse topic from task description
|
|
3. If topic starts with `@` or ends with `.md`/`.txt` → Read referenced file
|
|
4. Run CLI seed analysis:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Bash({
|
|
command: `ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Analyze topic and extract structured seed information.
|
|
TASK: * Extract problem statement * Identify target users * Determine domain context
|
|
* List constraints * Identify 3-5 exploration dimensions * Assess complexity
|
|
TOPIC: <topic-content>
|
|
MODE: analysis
|
|
EXPECTED: JSON with: problem_statement, target_users[], domain, constraints[], exploration_dimensions[], complexity_assessment" --tool gemini --mode analysis`,
|
|
run_in_background: false
|
|
})
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
5. Parse seed analysis JSON
|
|
|
|
## Phase 3: Codebase Exploration (conditional)
|
|
|
|
**Objective**: Gather codebase context if project detected.
|
|
|
|
| Condition | Action |
|
|
|-----------|--------|
|
|
| package.json / Cargo.toml / pyproject.toml / go.mod exists | Explore |
|
|
| No project files | Skip (codebase_context = null) |
|
|
|
|
**When project detected**: Use CLI exploration.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Bash({
|
|
command: `ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Explore codebase for context to inform spec generation
|
|
TASK: • Identify tech stack • Map architecture patterns • Document conventions • List integration points
|
|
MODE: analysis
|
|
CONTEXT: @**/*
|
|
EXPECTED: JSON with: tech_stack[], architecture_patterns[], conventions[], integration_points[]" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-analyze-code-patterns`,
|
|
run_in_background: false
|
|
})
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Phase 4: Context Packaging + Discuss
|
|
|
|
### 4a: Context Packaging
|
|
|
|
**spec-config.json** → `<session>/spec/spec-config.json`
|
|
**discovery-context.json** → `<session>/spec/discovery-context.json`
|
|
**design-intelligence.json** → `<session>/analysis/design-intelligence.json` (UI mode only)
|
|
|
|
### 4b: Inline Discuss (DISCUSS-001)
|
|
|
|
**Multi-perspective critique via parallel CLI calls**:
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
# Product perspective
|
|
Bash(`ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Review discovery context from product perspective
|
|
CONTEXT: @<session>/spec/discovery-context.json
|
|
EXPECTED: Rating (1-5) + concerns + recommendations
|
|
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on market fit, user value, scope clarity" --tool gemini --mode analysis`, { run_in_background: true })
|
|
|
|
# Risk perspective
|
|
Bash(`ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Review discovery context from risk perspective
|
|
CONTEXT: @<session>/spec/discovery-context.json
|
|
EXPECTED: Rating (1-5) + risks + mitigation strategies
|
|
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on technical risks, dependencies, unknowns" --tool codex --mode analysis`, { run_in_background: true })
|
|
|
|
# Coverage perspective
|
|
Bash(`ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Review discovery context from coverage perspective
|
|
CONTEXT: @<session>/spec/discovery-context.json
|
|
EXPECTED: Rating (1-5) + gaps + missing dimensions
|
|
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on completeness, edge cases, requirements coverage" --tool claude --mode analysis`, { run_in_background: true })
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Wait for all results, aggregate ratings and feedback, determine consensus verdict:
|
|
- **HIGH**: Any rating <= 2 → User pause required
|
|
- **MEDIUM**: All ratings 3-4 → Proceed with caution
|
|
- **LOW**: All ratings >= 4 → Proceed
|
|
|
|
Handle verdict per consensus protocol.
|
|
|
|
**Report**: complexity, codebase presence, problem statement, dimensions, discuss verdict, output paths.
|
|
|
|
## Error Handling
|
|
|
|
| Scenario | Resolution |
|
|
|----------|------------|
|
|
| CLI failure | Fallback to direct Claude analysis |
|
|
| Codebase detection failed | Continue as new project |
|
|
| Topic too vague | Report with clarification questions |
|
|
| CLI critique fails | Proceed without critique, log warning |
|